Duplicate records on the ANBD

Duplicate records consist of two or more bibliographic records describing the same bibliographic item.

The principal categories of duplicates most frequently encountered are monographic and serial duplicates.

Serial Duplicate Records

Owing to the frequently complex histories of serial titles, members are strongly encouraged to report all potential serial duplicates for review by the Australian National Bibliographic Database staff using the duplicate records reporting form (below).

Monograph Duplicate Records

When duplicate records are discovered, Libraries Australia members should report the potential duplicate records to the Help Desk using the duplicate records reporting form (below), indicating the preferred record for retention and the one for deletion.

Identifying Duplicates

Duplicate records come from a variety of sources and in a variety of guises.

The following provides an overview of the most common areas considered when determining whether or not an item is a duplicate.

Where possible, always work with the item in hand.

Title and statement of responsibility [MARC21 : 245].

Compare the 245 field of each record to see whether they are identical. Disregard any minor differences in punctuation and capitalisation. Use your discretion where data has been transposed, since layout or typeface might have influenced the cataloguer’s choice of title and subtitle

Publication, distribution, etc., area [MARC21 : 260].

Compare the 260 fields. If the 260 fields are different assume that the records are not duplicates. The following exceptions apply:

in the case of Cataloguing-In-Publication (CIP) records, easily discernible by the charater ’8′ in position 17 of the leader line – 000/17, the publishing data could have been altered since the CIP was issued.

if the 260 field reflects an open date for one record, and a single date for another, but matches in other respects, one record is being treated as a multi-volume work and the other as a monograph, with each volume being treated individually. Keep both records.

NOTE: Be particularly careful when checking records created for the Retrospective National Bibliography project. If the same data is present with and without square brackets, consider that a match does not exist.

If the 245 and 260 fields are the same, compare the Edition area [MARC21 : 250] and the Physical description area [MARC21 : 300]. If everything else matches and the only difference in the 300 field is that one record contains specific pagination, and the other contains “1 v.”, consider that a match exists and the records are duplicates.

Introduction

Duplicate removal entails the transfer of holdings from one record to another and then deletion of the non-preferred record. The immutable number of the deleted record is manually transferred to the preferred record so that local systems can recognise that a replacement has occurred.

When In Doubt, Leave It Out

If there is any doubt about whether a record is a duplicate or not, do not regard it as a duplicate. Remember that the duplicate removal process also transfers Libraries Australia users’ contributed holdings. If a record that is not a duplicate is accidentally replaced it is very difficult to recreate the original record and practically impossible to transfer back its holdings. If you suspect a particular record is a duplicate, report it to the National Bibliographic Database staff for review and resolution on the Duplicate records reporting form (link opens a new window).

Duplicate Records Reports

With the introduction of the Duplicate records reporting form, this has become the default standard.

There are two categories of duplicate reports: monographs and serials.

These guidelines describe the identification of duplicate monographs only. If you discover that the suspected duplicates you have found are serials, mark them clearly as serials in the box marked “Comments and other information” on the Duplicate records reporting form.

Guidelines To Identify Duplicate Monographs

Please bear in mind the following guidelines when you come across suspected duplicates during the course of your work:

If you have used an ISBN search, a single search will produce all possible duplicates. Please provide this ISBN in the the Duplicate records reporting form.

If you have used a title search or searches, please note and supply it or them in the Duplicate records reporting form.

View the suspected duplicate records in MARC display.

Compare the 245 field of each record to see whether they are identical.Disregard any minor differences in punctuation and capitalisation.Use your discretion where data has been transposed. For example, layout or typeface might have influenced the cataloguers’ choice of title and subtitle.

Compare 260 fields. If the 260 fields are different assume that the records are not duplicates. The following exceptions apply:

in the case of an interim record migrated from ABN the 260 field could have been incorrectly entered. Migrated interims are recognisable by their brevity and the generic data present in the 008 field.

in the case of CIP records, easily discernible by 8 in position 17 of the Leader, the publishing data could have been altered since the CIP was issued.

if the IMP field reflects an open date for one record, and a single date for another (but matches in other respects), one record is being treated as a multi- volume work and the other as a monograph (that is, each volume is being treated individually).Consider that a match does not exist. NOTE: Be particularly careful when checking records created for the Retrospective National Bibliography project. If the same data is present but presented with and without square brackets, consider that a match does not exist.

if the 245 and 260 fields are the same compare the 250 and 300 fields. If everything else matches and the only difference in the 300 field is that one record contains specific pagination, and the other contains “1 v.”, consider that a match exists and the records are duplicates.

Further Guidelines To Establish A Match Or Mismatch

The following are further guidelines to assist you in deciding whether or not a match exists. In all cases the assumption is that the records match in all other respects.

Match

Additional publisher and place in one record. For example:

260 $aLondon :$bMcMillan,$c1980.

260 $aLondon :$bMcMillan;$aNew York :$bRandom,$c1980.

Consider that a match exists.

Different place, same publisher and date. For example:

260 $aIlfracombe :$bWhite Systems,$c1980.

260 $aDevon :$bWhite Systems,$c1980.

Ilfracombe is in Devon.

Consider that a match exists.

The 260 fields are the same, except that one has a ‘g’ subfield (printing date). For example:

260 $aLondon :$bMcMillan,$c1976.

260 $aLondon :$bMcMillan,$c1976$g(1980 printing)

Consider that a match exists.

NOTE: For National Bibliography records only, consider that a match does not exist.

Mismatch

300 fields may have different videorecording formats as, for example, ‘Beta’, ‘VHS’ etc.

Consider that a match does not exist.

One is a large print edition.

Consider that a match does not exist.

Monograph and/or serial treatment by preference.

Participants may elect to treat titles in the yearbook/directory category as either monographs or serials according to their acquisition policies. Therefore both monograph and serial records for such titles will be found on Libraries Australia and should be allowed to co-exist.

Consider that a match does not exist.

Different 020 field

When records are identical except for ISBN regard them as separate records not duplicates unless you can determine one is for the paperback and the other for the hardback

Parliamentary paper series

A duplicate does not exist if one record has a series statement for ‘parliamentary paper’ and the other does not.

Presence of a 533 field

The 533 field identifies the record as a microform. As many LC records do not include a GMD, it is important to look for indications of material type and format.

Do not confuse this record with the hard copy record.

Format of catalogue records.

When deciding if duplicates exist, please keep in mind that items belonging to two or more distinct classes of material may be catalogued in the format which brings out aspects of the material to be emphasised. For example, a map serial may be catalogued as a map with serial qualities, or as a printed serial with map qualities.

Do not treat these records as duplicates.

Deciding Which Is The Preferred Record

Once you have decided that the records are indeed duplicates, it would be most helpful were you to indicate which record is the preferred one.

Take the following guidelines into consideration when making your decision:

In general, follow the bumping hierarchy for bibliographic records on Libraries Australia; the record higher in the priority would be chosen in most cases. See the bumping hierarchy table at the end of these guidelines. The bumping hierarchy codes will be present in the 040 tag.

When comparing full records, generally select the fuller record.

Prefer the record with the correct record type.

If everything else is equal, choose to keep, in this order:

the record with the higher verification level;

the record with the higher encoding level;

the record which came onto the database first, namely, the record with the lower AN number.

NOTE:To check a record’s verification level, you will need to go through the Libraries Australia Client, using the ABS MARC Display.